Specific code written with Mega Millions in mind I see; similar math can be done for other lottery games (modularity goal here?)
Your math suggests betting with jackpot amount at 81.79% of jackpot odds; might a similar heuristic be usable for other games that have a similarly top-loaded prize pool? (I have noticed that the amount concentrated in higher-value less-likely prizes is an important part of lottery math even if the prize pools are of proportionally same size.)
Net present value of the jackpot annuity - financial-math calculation to be accounted for
seems like you calculated the expected value of the jackpot plus the expected value of the other prizes. I'm not much of a coder, so I've ran such calculations by hand (well, using Excel for layout and arithmetic)
It so happens that Python is the language I've used for what little coding I had done (my instructor liked how it's full-featured yet reasonably grokkable by beginners)
Is "from __future__ import division" the start of the actual code? Might I want to comment out (but still leave in) the text above that line?
Speaking for US federal taxes at least: You're right about gambling losses being tax-deductible. However, you can't deduct more than you win, which somewhat increases the relative financial impact of losing, thus affecting the expected-value calculations (seemingly beyond the scope of this code)
It seems like the odds of having to split the jackpot would also be beyond the scope of this code. Economically speaking, being neutral to risk and assuming proportional utility of money are some other non-code underlying assumptions.
Odds of winning jackpot 1/X, jackpot is Y dollars : that seems to be the pertinent information. Are you saying that I should play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X, or are you suggesting some other calculation based on these numbers?
In New York, the jackpot games available are: state LOTTO (6/59) - 1 in 23 million Mega Millions - 1 in 176 million Powerball - 1 in 196 million
I'll spell it out for the benefit of geniuses like Mr. AC here
Counselor metaphorically referring to how the week was a lot of hard work on the camp staff's part, yet still a worthwhile endeavor. My comment pretends that there actually were sexual experiences (there actually weren't), being literally described by a female involved.
Camp counselor: It was a pain in the ass this week, but it was fun Me: That's what she said Other camper: That was the best "That's what she said" I've ever heard.
Sometimes those hackneyed lines are indeed contextually fitting.:)
Approaching it mathematically adds entertainment value for me, even though most mathematically-inclined people avoid gambling.
I bought one ticket for that Mega Millions drawing (luck on one a la Charlie and the Chocolate factory); I played factors of 42 (3-6-7-14-21, 42); only the MegaBall hit. $2 sure ain't $millions, but I'll still take it.:)
I noticed that people were buying tickets on big-jackpot day like crazy; the question is if that would drive the expected value down enough to be a problem. Of course, in this regard, you have a chance with progessive jackpots that you don't have with pari-mutuel and/or fixed-payout prize structures.
As for number-picking: You might want to set up formal pooling arrangements in which you all play different numbers, and if under the arrangement you each end up entitled to part of the prize won on someone else's numbers, you've created a "higher chance at proportionally less money" situation without changing the rules of the game.
I focus on buying scratchoffs, so I haven't really thought about number-picking schemes. (In NY, the scratchoffs have a higher expected value to begin with, and concentrate the money in more-likely smaller prizes, which I prefer to unlikely bigger jackpots, all other things being equal.)
4 of the winning numbers in real life were those that Hurley played on Lost. I wonder how many Lost fans played his numbers for real? Could have skewed things bigtime if they had hit in RL for more than $150. That would be a weird category of number to avoid.
Hmm, them as collateral would be another way to do it. I'm sure the bank commissions would be better than discarding them. Everybody wins, the question is which parties win how much?
Seems like the options would be of comparable liquidity to the rest of the market.
I've seen editions of Shakespeare that have the original text on the lefthand pages, modern English on the righthand pages. That wouldn't work here, but that's another good example of intra-language translation. Of course, intra-language translation isn't _as_ needed for understanding.
freely preparing derivatives of a public-domain work and making an alternate version seems OK for me even if there's something to be said for the not-clean version.
"you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into" This is going into my (non-circular) quotes file. +7 Insightful, seriously.
(By the way, I'm very impressed with Sagan's "Dragons of Eden", which I've almost finished)
Yeah, on some forums there seems to be invisible constraints on what is allowed and approved discussion of the topic at hand. Ever notice comments along the lines of "if you're not a fan, why are you posting here"?
Yes, the gathering place can build fan enthusiasm.
Often, the unofficial fan forums are better anyway, but that might be specific management issues rather than an inherent deficiency in the concept. I can see it as an alternate channel for the fanbase, and a way for small outfits to try and jumpstart the fanbase process.
I wonder if the mortgage company would take the options in a barter arrangement. Okay, maybe not; sell the options elsewhere - money is known for getting around inefficiencies in the barter system
When passing through Vegas on a group outing (we were flying in and out of McCarran, and taking vans to our destination elsewhere), one of the more cynical adults in our crew pointed out a seedy pawnshop as a real face of Vegas.
No to mention the giant racks of slot machines we saw as soon as we got out at the gate
Yeah, I hear slot machines have some of the worst odds, and they seem to be amongst the most boring to play. Some of the table games might be a different story. I might play a bit if I happen to be near a casino for some other reason. [For example, I might have gone to a concert in Atlantic City, but that was scratched when the musician in question later announced a Buffalo date]
If you keep yourself under control, it's an entertainment expense which is partially paid back by the smaller payouts and really paid back on the off-chance that you hit bigger prizes.
Myself, I play handfuls of the state-lottery dollar scratchoffs [the odds on these aren't all that great, but they're better than the nightly draw games and proportional to the odds on the expensive scratchoffs.]
It's not fun when you get out of control anyway.
Considering the "entertainment expense" category, traveling to gamble seems kind of analogous to traveling for an out-of-town concert. (Neither the local lottery retailers nor the local music clubs may be enough for the respective enthusiasts all the time.)
See signature; I'm not ideologically opposed to large _entertainment_ corporations, either.
Slashdot Mirror
PowerBall jackpot at 34% of odds, NY LOTTO jackpot at 16%, MegaMillions at 11% - seems I've got awhile to wait for now. :(
Specific code written with Mega Millions in mind I see; similar math can be done for other lottery games (modularity goal here?)
Your math suggests betting with jackpot amount at 81.79% of jackpot odds; might a similar heuristic be usable for other games that have a similarly top-loaded prize pool? (I have noticed that the amount concentrated in higher-value less-likely prizes is an important part of lottery math even if the prize pools are of proportionally same size.)
Net present value of the jackpot annuity - financial-math calculation to be accounted for
seems like you calculated the expected value of the jackpot plus the expected value of the other prizes.
I'm not much of a coder, so I've ran such calculations by hand (well, using Excel for layout and arithmetic)
It so happens that Python is the language I've used for what little coding I had done (my instructor liked how it's full-featured yet reasonably grokkable by beginners)
Is "from __future__ import division" the start of the actual code? Might I want to comment out (but still leave in) the text above that line?
Speaking for US federal taxes at least:
You're right about gambling losses being tax-deductible. However, you can't deduct more than you win, which somewhat increases the relative financial impact of losing, thus affecting the expected-value calculations (seemingly beyond the scope of this code)
It seems like the odds of having to split the jackpot would also be beyond the scope of this code.
Economically speaking, being neutral to risk and assuming proportional utility of money are some other non-code underlying assumptions.
Are you open-source-licensing this? :)
I recalled this example on an Irish 6/36 game; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_National_Lottery#Games
Odds of winning jackpot 1/X, jackpot is Y dollars : that seems to be the pertinent information.
Are you saying that I should play (unlikely-to-be-shared numbers) when Y>X, or are you suggesting some other calculation based on these numbers?
In New York, the jackpot games available are:
state LOTTO (6/59) - 1 in 23 million
Mega Millions - 1 in 176 million
Powerball - 1 in 196 million
I'll spell it out for the benefit of geniuses like Mr. AC here
Counselor metaphorically referring to how the week was a lot of hard work on the camp staff's part, yet still a worthwhile endeavor.
My comment pretends that there actually were sexual experiences (there actually weren't), being literally described by a female involved.
Camp counselor: It was a pain in the ass this week, but it was fun
Me: That's what she said
Other camper: That was the best "That's what she said" I've ever heard.
Sometimes those hackneyed lines are indeed contextually fitting. :)
'Twas obvious that this was a humor (a decent attempt, IMHO)
Neither the actual I Kings 9:21 nor II Kings 9:21 seem relevant.
Approaching it mathematically adds entertainment value for me, even though most mathematically-inclined people avoid gambling.
I bought one ticket for that Mega Millions drawing (luck on one a la Charlie and the Chocolate factory); I played factors of 42 (3-6-7-14-21, 42); only the MegaBall hit. $2 sure ain't $millions, but I'll still take it. :)
I noticed that people were buying tickets on big-jackpot day like crazy; the question is if that would drive the expected value down enough to be a problem. Of course, in this regard, you have a chance with progessive jackpots that you don't have with pari-mutuel and/or fixed-payout prize structures.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:irs.gov+gambling+winnings search results may be useful for USians
As for number-picking:
You might want to set up formal pooling arrangements in which you all play different numbers, and if under the arrangement you each end up entitled to part of the prize won on someone else's numbers, you've created a "higher chance at proportionally less money" situation without changing the rules of the game.
I focus on buying scratchoffs, so I haven't really thought about number-picking schemes. (In NY, the scratchoffs have a higher expected value to begin with, and concentrate the money in more-likely smaller prizes, which I prefer to unlikely bigger jackpots, all other things being equal.)
4 of the winning numbers in real life were those that Hurley played on Lost. I wonder how many Lost fans played his numbers for real? Could have skewed things bigtime if they had hit in RL for more than $150. That would be a weird category of number to avoid.
you had some good comments, and I'll still be replying to you. it's cool. :)
Hmm, them as collateral would be another way to do it.
I'm sure the bank commissions would be better than discarding them. Everybody wins, the question is which parties win how much?
Seems like the options would be of comparable liquidity to the rest of the market.
so, sidestepping this issue to focus on other aspects of the book? I can see that in a practical sense.
Conbreastution is another example of hack-job censorship. :)
I've seen editions of Shakespeare that have the original text on the lefthand pages, modern English on the righthand pages.
That wouldn't work here, but that's another good example of intra-language translation.
Of course, intra-language translation isn't _as_ needed for understanding.
Romans 3:23 NIV: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
I can totally see this being used as an ideological weapon.
freely preparing derivatives of a public-domain work and making an alternate version seems OK for me even if there's something to be said for the not-clean version.
"you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into"
This is going into my (non-circular) quotes file. +7 Insightful, seriously.
(By the way, I'm very impressed with Sagan's "Dragons of Eden", which I've almost finished)
Yeah, on some forums there seems to be invisible constraints on what is allowed and approved discussion of the topic at hand.
Ever notice comments along the lines of "if you're not a fan, why are you posting here"?
Yes, the gathering place can build fan enthusiasm.
Often, the unofficial fan forums are better anyway, but that might be specific management issues rather than an inherent deficiency in the concept.
I can see it as an alternate channel for the fanbase, and a way for small outfits to try and jumpstart the fanbase process.
I wonder if the mortgage company would take the options in a barter arrangement. Okay, maybe not; sell the options elsewhere - money is known for getting around inefficiencies in the barter system
When passing through Vegas on a group outing (we were flying in and out of McCarran, and taking vans to our destination elsewhere), one of the more cynical adults in our crew pointed out a seedy pawnshop as a real face of Vegas.
No to mention the giant racks of slot machines we saw as soon as we got out at the gate
taking gambles might be very advantageous in life, although probably not in casino's.
Yes, this may be the negative misfiring of something that's normally beneficial in our environment.
Technically, that's indeed the best way to win, but unlike nuclear war, people occasionally win at the lottery.
Yeah, I hear slot machines have some of the worst odds, and they seem to be amongst the most boring to play. Some of the table games might be a different story.
I might play a bit if I happen to be near a casino for some other reason.
[For example, I might have gone to a concert in Atlantic City, but that was scratched when the musician in question later announced a Buffalo date]
icebraining *did* say "George Carlin later apologized" :)
I agree that Carlin was often a master at bluntly and humorously telling the truth.
"Sometimes, the jester is the only one who can safely tell the truth"
Stewart and Colbert seem to be another obvious example of what you refer to.
If you keep yourself under control, it's an entertainment expense which is partially paid back by the smaller payouts and really paid back on the off-chance that you hit bigger prizes.
Myself, I play handfuls of the state-lottery dollar scratchoffs [the odds on these aren't all that great, but they're better than the nightly draw games and proportional to the odds on the expensive scratchoffs.]
It's not fun when you get out of control anyway.
Considering the "entertainment expense" category, traveling to gamble seems kind of analogous to traveling for an out-of-town concert. (Neither the local lottery retailers nor the local music clubs may be enough for the respective enthusiasts all the time.)
See signature; I'm not ideologically opposed to large _entertainment_ corporations, either.